HBCSD Corruption

The Misleading Information:

NOTE: School Board member Lance Widman ignored his own "operating principals" to unfairly blame Valley School residents for the high cost of the gymnasium and the elimination of all but two classrooms. 

December 16, 2002 – HBCSD Budget Committee Meeting, Valley School Library. 

“Lance [Widman] suggested that the committee establish operating principals or norms to govern the conversation.  The group opened with:”

1.       Respect all positions

2.      Maintain confidentiality

3.      Start at the ground up (“put everything on the table”)

4.      Suspend assumption

(1)       Lance Widman, HBCSD School Board member (2002-2008).

Letter to the Editor - To my old friend by Lance Widman, November 24, 2005, Easy Reader News:

“Gordon [Evans] basically rehashes the same old tired complaints submitted to the court by the Committee for Responsible School Expansion (CRSE).  The court has held that voters were fully aware that the new construction called for in Measure J did include a gym…”

CORRECT INFORMATION:

The Court of Appeals ruled:  "The School District satisfied the Constitution’s accountability requirements by preparing and making available the required list of projects, which included a gymnasium.  Neither the state Constitution nor the Education Code requires that the list of specific school facilities projects to be funded through a bond measure be included on the ballot.” 

“The delays caused by these merit-less complaints [CRSE lawsuit] have increased construction costs between $500,000 at $1 million since May, along with District legal bills exceeding $20,000 that could have gone to teachers in our classrooms and for our students.”

COMPETING INFORMATION: School board members including Lance Widman used almost $1 million dollars of district funds to finish work on the new construction at Valley School. 

A.      June 2007 – HBCSD Purchase Orders over $500.

a.      P.O.#7662 – F&R Woodworks: Architectural & Laboratory, Fund- Capital Facility Fund, Amount-$115,800.00*

b.      P.O.#7663 – Floor Covering for New Construction, Fund-Capital Facility Fund, Amount-$31,859.00*

*NOTE: $147,659.00 was taken out of school district reserves NOT from bond funds.  Bond funds had already been exhausted.

NOTE: Casework, painting and floor coverings totaling $200,522.00 were removed from final bids that were accepted in February 2006. 

NOTE: The $147,659.00 paid for casework and floor coverings in June 2007 were above and beyond the $700,000.00 that school board members had taken from district reserves in order to pay for the February 2006 bids.

B.      HBCSD Contract Extension for Construction Management Services for the Hermosa Valley School New Construction Project.  B-10-07/08 (July 19, 2007):

"Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board of Education approve an extension of the original contract with PCM3, Inc. to perform construction management services at a cost not to exceed $77,767.80."*

…”The project [new construction at Valley School] also saw various unforeseen conditions including to but not limited to the new south retaining wall, additional west wall shoring requirements, relocation of the municipal sewer line and DSA additional requirements…”  “Cost of this contract extension is charged to Fund #25 Capital Facility Fund…”

*NOTE: $77,767.80 was taken out of school district reserves NOT from bond funds.  Bond funds had already been exhausted.

NOTE: The $77,767.80 paid for additional PCM3, Inc. in June 2007 were above and beyond the $700,000.00 that school board members had taken from district reserves in order to pay for the February 2006 bids. 

C.      HBCSD Contract Extension for Architectural Services for the Hermosa Valley School New Construction Project.  B-11-07/08 (July 18, 2007): 

"Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board of Education approve an extension of the original contract with Dougherty and Dougherty to perform architectural services during the construction and close out phase at a cost not to exceed $39,500.00."*

…”The project [new construction at Valley School] also saw various unforeseen conditions including to but not limited to the new south retaining wall, additional west wall shoring requirements, relocation of the municipal sewer line and DSA additional requirements…”   “Cost of this contract extension is charged to Fund #25 Capital Facility Fund…” 

*NOTE: $39,500.00 was taken out of school district reserves NOT from bond funds.  Bond funds had already been exhausted.

NOTE: The $39,500.00 paid for additional Dougherty and Dougherty architectural services in June 2007 were above and beyond the $700,000.00 that school board members had taken from district reserves in order to pay for the February 2006 bids. 

D.     Proposal for Security Service to HBCSD - A&A Protective Services, Inc.  (October 4, 2007):

Unarmed security service for Valley School new construction.  It is believed that the security service was needed for the gymnasium since the fire alarm in the gymnasium was not working properly.  The length of the contract was approximately from October 2007 until June 2008.  The cost of unarmed security services was $22.40/hour.  $22.40/hour times 8 hours/day = $179.20/day.  $179.20 x approximately 149 days = $26,700.00.  Paid from HBCSD General Fund which is used to educate students.

(2) Easy Reader Newspaper. Gymnasium’s second floor saved by board by Robb Fulcher, February 23, 2006:

“Despite concerns over a tight construction budget, the Hermosa School Board has decided not to ax the second story of a gymnasium-library building that is under construction at Hermosa Valley School.”

COMPETING INFORMATION: The second floor holds the only two classrooms in the new construction and necessitated a dedicated elevator.  Would school board members really consider scraping the only classrooms in the project to save the gymnasium? Why would school board members make the gymnasium the most important feature of Measure J?  

“Over those three years construction projects have soared, forcing the board to ax four classrooms from the project and agree to spend at least part of the school district’s $1.2 million reserve fund if necessary.*  The reserve fund is made up of proceeds from the sale of school district properties and by law can be used only for construction and other capital improvements, district officials said.” 

*COMPETING INFORMATION:  At June 30, 2005 HBCSD reserves were only $225,960.   At June 30, 2006 HBCSD reserves were only $352,039.  At June 30, 2007 HBCSD reserves were only $439,632.  ALL actual reserves amounts were much less than the stated $1.2 million of school district reserves reported in the article by Robb Fulcher.

"I’m very, very frustrated with the lawsuit and the delays because of it,” she [Cathy Barrow, HBCSD English teacher] said after the meeting.  She said she was also disappointed that delays caused classrooms to be cut from the project.” 

NOTE: The school board members’ plan to make the neighbors next to Valley School the scapegoat for the district spending $11 million dollars for the gymnasium is repeated and accepted as fact by members of the community.

(3) Lance Widman, HBCSD School Board member (2002-2008). Letter to the Editor - Caught in a time warp by Lance Widman HBCSD School Board member, April 6, 2006, The Beach Reporter: 

“The May 2005 construction bids included a new library/media center, two science labs, a multipurpose gymnasium facility and two additional classrooms, with funding available to complete the entire project.  Unfortunately, a neighborhood group, CRSE, sued the district, forcing a six-month delay.  This caused construction costs to increase more than $100,000 for each month it was delayed.”  

NOTE: School board members DID NOT have funding to "complete the entire project" in May 2005.

(4)      Greg Breen, HBCSD School Board member (2002-2008). Greg Breen’s personal letter to Mr. Tom Graner (community member), April 22, 2006: 

Please see: Letter to the Editor - Regarding: “Caught in a time warp” by Tom Graner, April 11, 2006, The Beach Reporter:

NOTE: Greg Breen seemingly (purposely?) completely misses the point of Tom Graner’s letter. Tom Graner was making the point that even if the district had accepted the May 2005 bids, any future construction cost increases probably would have been added to the project anyway.  Apparently, there were no controls in place in the bid specifications/instructions that would have prevented future cost increases from being charged to the district as the project proceeded.

“Thanks for your interest in the schools, and for taking the time to express your concerns in the local paper.  There is one comment in your letter I need to correct.  Your letter mentioned that the lawsuit was not accountable for the increase in construction costs since those costs could have increased anyway.  I do not think this is quite correct.  I think the proper comparison is between the contracts that were rejected in May [2005] and the contracts that were accepted in November [2005], since both the new and the old contracts are comparable and contained the same exclusions and exceptions.”  This is an incorrect statement*

CORRECT INFORMATION:  The Department of State Architects did not approve the district’s building plans until July 1, 2005.  At that time the DSA okayed the new construction plans with ADDITIONAL requirements for excavation and shoring.

*NOTE: At the bottom of the October 2005 Budget Breakdown by Project, in the Notes, item #6: “New construction includes DSA initiated changes and trailer park wall modifications.”  This is a NEW NOTE added to this October 2005 Budget Breakdown report reflecting the larger scope of the project after Department of State Architect review in July 2005 thus the increase in costs.  This note did not appear in the May 2005 construction bids.

According to emails between Citizens’ Oversight Committee members, the California Department of State Architecture had included additional requirements for increased reinforcement of retaining walls for the gymnasium complex at Valley School.  Therefore, the requirements DID changed after the May 2005 bids proving that Greg Breen's statement to community member Tom Graner was incorrect.  The October 27, 2005 bids and the May 2005 bids were not apples to apples comparisons.

“Both contracts can be viewed as stating [starting] base bids, if you will, bids that are fixed except as to as to excluded elements, excluded elements that are comparable between contracts.”

This is an incorrect statement.  See *NOTE above.

”The bids received in May – and that we rejected because of the lawsuit…”

CORRECT INFORMATION: See the PROOF OF THE LIE.  There is no evidence that the May 2005 bids were rejected because of the lawsuit.

(5)       Measure J Citizen Oversight Committee Final Report – 9/30/09: 

“The litigation-caused delay forced the District to re-bid all of the new construction contracts resulting in an increase of $1.7 million for the work due to increases in costs and materials and labor, as well as the implementation of new construction requirements by the state during the pendency of the lawsuit that added additional costs.” 

A. Jerry Compton filed his lawsuit on April 8, 2005.

B. The district’s first set of constructions bids (May 26, 2005) came in $2.6 million over available bond funding.

C.  The California Department of State Architects (DSA) did NOT okay district construction plans until July 1, 2005.

D. The July 1, 2005 approval by the DSA required additional shoring and excavation of the new construction at Valley School.

E.  HBCSD can not start building without DSA approval of plans. HBCSD IS REQUIRED BY LAW to implement DSA changes to their construction plans.

F. HBCSD school board members had to accept the May 25, 2005 construction bids by July 24, 2005.

G. If HBCSD had accepted the May 2005 bids, which did not include funding for the DSA changes of July 1, 2005, the cost of the additional shoring and excavation requirements would have been added to future construction bids. It is unlikely that any construction firm would have performed the increased excavation and shoring for free, especially when HBCSD had known about the additional requirements before accepting bids.

H. If HBCSD school board members had started construction without considering the DSA changes, the DSA would have made the district go back and re-excavate and re-shore any work that had already been done that did not conform to DSA requirements.

I. Just because the pendency of the citizen’s lawsuit happened during the DSA added building requirements, does not mean that the lawsuit caused the additional DSA requirements or additional construction costs.

J. The next set of construction bids that were obtained in October 2005 reflected the higher construction costs.  In the Notes Section, item #6: “New construction includes DSA initiated changes and trailer park wall modifications.” (Exhibit TL-2005,Oct27 & 2005May26 notes) This is a NEW NOTE added to the October 2005 Budget Breakdown report and reflected the larger scope of the project after Department of State Architect review and thus the increase in costs.  This note did not appear in the May 2005 construction bids.

K. The lawsuit had NOTHING to do with the DSA additional construction requirements nor the increase in construction costs for the new construction at Valley School.

(6)       Pat Escalante, HBCSD Superintendent (2012 - 2022).  HBCSD calls for support of upcoming bond measure, despite opponents’ concerns about 2002 bond spending by Alana Garrigues, September 7, 2014, The Beach Reporter.

“Superintendent Pat Escalante said more classrooms could have been built, if it hadn’t been for the cost of litigation surrounding the measure.  However she was also quick to mention that the gym happened under a different board, a different administration and under different circumstances than the bond.” 

(7)       Greg Breen, HBCSD School Board member (2002-2008): Letter to the Editor, Sue losers, by Greg Breen, July 2, 2015, Easy Reader News.

“I had mistakenly said that the 2004 lawsuit she [Miyo Prassas] and her tiny group brought against the school district cost the district $1 million and she pointed out the total was closer to $1.5 Million. 

(8)       Cathy McCurdy, HBCSD School Board member (1999-2007, 2009-2011) True North: History weighs on Hermosa’s schools by Ryan McDonald, January 31, 2019, Easy Reader News.

A.       “McCurdy (School Board member 1999-2007, re-appointed (by the cabal?) 2009-2011) said that the lawsuit caused a delay of between six months and a year in starting construction, which raised the minimum bid the district received by half a million dollars.”  See the Proof of the Lie information.

B.       “The suit [lawsuit filed by the Committee for Responsible School Expansion in April 2005] was dismissed the next year in a unanimous decision from the California Court of Appeal.  But the district had to dip into bond proceeds* to defend itself, which had the ironic effect of limiting the district’s flexibility on the Valley Project, creating greater disappointment with what resulted.”

THIS IS AN INCORRECT STATEMENT.

CORRECT INFORMATION: Hermosa Beach City School District get OK for gym, by Shelly Leachman, December 15, 2006, The Daily Breeze.

 “McCurdy [School Board member Cathy McCurdy] said the district has spent nearly $140,000 from its general fund on legal fees.”

*NOTE: By law, facility bond funds are supposed to be used for construction related costs only, not on lawsuits.  HBCSD took the $140,000 it spent on the lawsuit from its own checking account (aka the general fund) NOT from bond proceeds. 

C. “Leading up to Measure J construction, Flaherty [Mike Flaherty, Hermosa Beach Public Works Department and Hermosa Beach Planning Commission] said at one point he suggested relocating the driveway entrance to fit more people on campus and have fewer queuing on the street. ”They said, “Mike, we spent so much money in defense of the bond, we can no longer spend that money on the driveway,” he recalled.”

THIS IS AN INCORRECT STATEMENT.

CORRECT INFORMATION:           

1.       School board members had eliminated plans to reconfigure the Valley School parking lot and driveway, upgrade the Valley School kitchen, upgrade the playground, etc. in favor of the gymnasium years before accepting bids in February 2006 for the new construction at Valley School.

2.       District cuts back on expansion** by David Rosenfeld, May 20, 2004, Easy Reader Newspaper: 

**NOTE: This article was written one year BEFORE the lawsuit brought by Jerry Compton in April 2005.

a.      “After costly delays, the board votes to cut two classrooms and scale back the library to meet $800,000 shortfall.”

b.      “The board decided 4-1 Wednesday to maintain plans for a large gymnasium while scaling back a proposed library and eliminate two proposed classrooms.”

c.      “The gym will hold two courts for either volleyball or basketball and seat about 100 spectators around the main court.”

d.      “Board member Greg Breen said he supported the large gym but would not support additional parking at the school because “Less parking gives incentives to walk.  We’ve got a car problem in our culture and a lack of physical exercise.”

3.       December 17, 2003 construction bids – Three years before the final tally for the Valley School new construction (gymnasium, library, two science classrooms) came in at $11,385,950 in January 2006, the 2003 estimate came in at $2,346,013 over available funds for a total of $8,991,013.   Regardless of whether or not HBCSD had the “wherewithal” to complete the new construction, considering the crazy cost of $8,991,013 in 2003, long before a lawsuit was brought by Jerry Compton (April 2005), why would school board members continue making the gymnasium the focus of $13.6 million of Measure J bond funds?   Why would any school board member continue to make building a gymnasium the priority over the Facility Master Plan recommendation for 14 more classrooms by 2012?

4.       NOTE: California schools are not required to have a gymnasium. 

5.       NOTE: According to Exhibit K of the Sales and Purchase Agreement for Pier Avenue School, HBCSD had priority rights to use the gymnasium and changing rooms at the Community Center rent free.  The Community Center is located two short blocks from Valley School.  In addition, there are crossing guards stationed at Pier Avenue and Valley/Ardmore intersection between Valley School and the Community Center. 

D. “McCurdy said that the lawsuit caused a delay of between six months and a year in starting construction, which raised the minimum bid the district received by half a million dollars.” 

 THIS IS A MISLEADING AND UNTRUE STATEMENT.

NOTE: The lawsuit was brought by Jerry Compton in April 2005.

CORRECT INFORMATION:

Did the lawsuit cause school board members to delay accepting the May 2005 bids or was the real reasons school board members did not accept the May 2005 bids because?:

1.       There was an initial shortfall of $2,612,000.  See June 1, 2005 - Citizens’ Oversight Committee Meeting Minutes:

a.       Item 5. Old Business.  …”On the new construction [gymnasium at Valley School] the bids [May 25, 2005] have come in at a level higher than our available funds.”…  “Shortfall  $2,612,000”

b.      “The bids for the new construction were opened on May 24th and they increased from an expected level of $6.3 million to $7.55 million (the bids include an allowance of $515 million.)  The bids are higher than expected because 1) material costs have escalated, 2) we had the [to] make two changes as directed by the Department of State Architects, and 3) “fear factor” on the [south side adjacent to the Marineland Mobile Home Park] retaining wall, so the contractor bid high.” … “The construction bids are good for 60 days so if we are going to act on this [these] bids the District must “pull the trigger” by July 24, 2005.”…

NOTE:  School Board member Greg Breen’s claim on several occasions that school board members had the wherewithal to accept the May 2005 bids despite a shortfall of $2,612,000 has not been verified.   To make up for the lack of bond funding of $2,612,000, school board members would have had to take the funds from HBCSD coffers.  It is highly unlikely that HBCSD could have afforded to give up $2,612,000 from their general fund or reserve accounts so school board members could accept the May 2005 bids.  In 2005/2006 HBCSD total revenues were $8,352,324 and district reserves were only $352,039.  District reserves are its savings account. 

2.       The Department of State Architects did not approve HBCSD’s construction plans until July 1, 2005.  School districts are not allowed to start construction before getting sign-off by the DSA.  When the DSA approved the plans in July 2005 they also required additional excavation and shoring for the new construction at Valley School.

a.       The additional excavation and shoring required by the Department of State Architects on July 1, 2005, apparently increased hard costs by $637,761 from May 2005 to October 2005 ($8,193,105 - $7,555,344).  Soft costs rose by $564,659 from May 2005 to October 2005.   The increase in soft costs were for geotechnical, architectural fees, construction management and reproduction costs which would correspond to additional excavation and shoring requirements issued by the DSA in its July 2005 approval of new construction plans.  How much of the hard cost increase of $637,761 in October 2005 was also due to the additional excavation and south retaining wall requirements by the DSA in July 2005?

NOTE: At the bottom of the October 2005 Budget Breakdown by Project, in the Notes, item #6: “New construction includes DSA initiated changes and trailer park wall modifications.”  This is a new NOTE added to this October 2005 Budget Breakdown report reflecting the larger scope of the project after Department of State Architect review.  This note did not appear on the May 2005 bids.

b.       April 12, 2006 – HBCSD School Board Meeting of April 12, 2006 minutes: 

“He [Mr. Birjandi, Project Manager for PCM3] also said that the plans for the south wall construction are at the Department of State Architects waiting approval, and the plans are not expected back to the district for another two weeks.  Once the plans are returned, construction on the south wall will begin.  Mr. Birjandi spoke with the City of Hermosa Beach regarding the sewer line, and it appears that the district will pay for the new line.  Mr. Birjandi also stated that most of the unknowns underground have been discovered, and the contractors are now clear on what material needs to be purchased.”

c.       June 29, 2006 – HBCSD Facilities Committee and Public Forum minutes:

#1. “Report on current status of construction:  PCM3 representatives… presented the status of Valley School Construction since ground was broken. … Two unexpected items caused a delay in work while they were being fixed.  A sewer line had to be re-routed and the retaining wall between the District and the Mobile Home Park had to be replaced.***” 

***NOTE: Was the extra excavation and retaining wall part of the Department of State Architect additional requirements when approving district plans for new construction at Valley School in July 2005?  Were the additional requirements part of the increase in constructions costs in 2005?

d.       Soft costs are normally about 25% of hard costs.  The HBCSD gymnasium complex final soft costs were about 32%.

e.      The increase of $564,659 in soft costs for geotechnical, architectural services, construction management, etc. and hard costs of $637,761 to accommodate the Department of State Architects additional requirements more than account for the two regular classrooms cut from the final plans.  The two classrooms that were eliminated from final plans were estimated to save the project $700,000.

f.        In addition to eliminating two classrooms, school board members also eliminated casework, painting and floor coverings totaling $200,522.00 were removed from final bids.   The cost of the casework, painting and floor coverings were added back into the project in June 2007.  See P.O.#7662 and P.O. #7663.  The cost of casework, painting and floor coverings totaling $147,659 were not taken from bond funds.  They were taken from the school district reserves that are also used as the district’s savings account in case of economic uncertainties such as the 2008 Great Recession.

3.      The Coastal Commission did not approve the new gymnasium complex until early September 2005 and did so with event parking contingencies that were not addressed until 2006.  School districts need to have Coastal Commission approval before they are allowed to build in the Coastal Zone.

4.       The district was in the process of refunding a portion of their earlier bonds and the amount of additional funds was not finalized until February 23, 2006.* 

a.       May 11, 2005 – HBCSD resolution no. 15:04/05 providing for the issuance and sale of REFUNDING BONDS.  Refunding bonds required that HBCSD take out an Escrow Agreement which was not finalized until FEBRUARY 23, 2006.* 

b.      School board members did not know the final amount of funding that would be available to construct the gymnasium complex until February 2006. 

NOTE: Is it possible that the delay in accepting the May 2005 construction bids and the subsequent rise in construction costs had NOTHING TO DO WITH the lawsuit brought by Jerry Compton in April 2005 as claimed by school board members, HBCSD superintendents, reinforced by articles in the local newspapers and believed by district supporters and the community from 2005 onward?

Did HBCSD school board members simply use the lawsuit and the Valley School neighbors as their escape goat for prices rising and their own decisions to make a gymnasium the priority over classrooms from 2002 to 2008?

Did the local newspapers, The Easy Reader News and the Beach Reporter, simply publish articles that contained outrageous misinformation and made certain residents community targets without verifying that the information they were receiving from the school district was correct?

See also Lie #42: Claiming that the lawsuit brought against HBCSD in April 2005 cost the district $500,000 in legal fees.

(9) Why would school board members purposely try to blame fellow residents for the increase in costs?

a.       To discredit the people who were questioning making the gymnasium the focus of Measure J facilities bond.

b.       To discredit the people who were bringing up questions about the school district’s use of the Community Center (aka Pier Avenue School) for students.

c.       To deflect the blame for the high cost of the gymnasium complex from their own decisions to the actions of the Valley School residents.

d.       To create an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ attitude within the community for political reasons.   (School Board member Lance Widman was a political science teacher at El Camino College) See: June 8, 2006 – School trustee is theft suspecting removal of campaign sign, by Robb Fulcher, Easy Reader. 

e.       To try to shut-down “conversation” by community members who did not agree with school board members decisions.

f.        Was the REAL reason that school board members Lance Widman, Greg Breen and Cathy McCurdy blamed residents for the high cost of the gym and the elimination of all but two classrooms because building a gymnasium was part of a larger plan hatched by an unofficial clique of Hermosans to keep the school district out of the Community Center? Were Lance Widman, Greg Breen and Cathy McCurdy trying to cover up the wasted money spent on an overpriced gymnasium and the fact that no net new classrooms were built FOR THE OVERRIDING REASON so that the city did not have to share the Community Center with the school district?

g. Was building the gymnasium actually NOT about the children?